5 comments

Aldous Snow June 19th, 2012 | 12:19pm

Ms Dragas must go.

BleedOrangeandBlue June 19th, 2012 | 1:24pm

"My vote was an indication of my dissatisfaction with the process and the decision that lead to the resignation of Terry Sullivan. I have not been presented with evidence that I believe merits asking for her resignation, nor have I ever indicated that I would be willing to support such an effort. Given an opportunity I would have also voted to support her reinstatement. It is my opinion that the process leading to her resignation was flawed. I am convinced that in the future the Board of Visitors will always meet in a scheduled meeting to discuss issues involving the President."

Heywood Fralin - one of the most respected, honest and generous men in Virginia who served two terms on the BOV of Virginia Tech and two terms on the BOV of the University where he served as Rector.

Citizen Party June 19th, 2012 | 1:51pm

Appreciate's Fralin's vote and words.

Disagree for his call to move on so quickly and support interim Commerce Dean. I don't want to unite behind a BOV that does not have the confidence of the faculty without 1) explanation of change, reinstatement ,of Sullivan 2) resignation of BOV, 3) reforming the appointment process for BOV to have representation of non-corporate interests and have majority faculty, students, parents, staff-that's democracy.

Sullivan's statement to the Board is controlling, she was on the right track and the BOV wants to change that track to include a corporitizing of the University. we should not move on until we have had a full accounting

Ann Braniff June 19th, 2012 | 2:07pm

Dragos and Kington must go. Dr. Sullivan should be re-instated.
Dr. Sullivan respected the University's reputation and was improving upon it.
It is a miscarriage of justice and unbelievable greed.

Jones Op-Ed Data Errors June 19th, 2012 | 2:40pm

==============================
I am writing in response to the Op-Ed by Paul Tudor Jones, published in yesterday’s Daily Progress.
I believe that Mr. Jones’ comments about undergraduate admission and yield at the University of Virginia, however well intended, were misleading, and need to be placed in context.
Of undergraduate admission at UVA, Mr. Jones wrote:
“UVA’s most recent reported admissions yield is just 43%, which means the rate at which students accept a place at UVA after receiving an acceptance letter from Peabody Hall is well under half…and falling. Harvard’s yield rate is more than 80 percent, Yale’s is 68 percent and Stanford’s is 73 percent. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reports a 56 percent yield rate, 13 points higher than that of UVA.”
In response, I would like to note:
1) Our number one priority is enrolling an academically strong and diverse class. The academic caliber of enrolling students at the University of Virginia has increased every year for the past five years, breaking records each year for SAT mean (1351 in 2012) and percent ranked in the top 10 percent of the class (93% in 2012).
2) At 43%, our yield rate this year is the same as it was in 2011, although it has declined since the elimination of our binding Early Decision program in 2008. Students admitted under Early Decision plans commit to enroll if admitted, resulting in a higher yield for those schools compared to those without Early Decision plans. We eliminated our ED program in 2007 due to the lack of socioeconomic diversity in that application pool. Nationally, many of our peers have experienced a similar decline as application volume has exploded at selective colleges and universities. At UVA for example, we have seen a 52% increase in applications since 2008 with over 28,200 students vying for 3,360 places in the first-year class this year. Our admission offer rate was 29%, also a record low.
3) Our current yield rate ranks #12 in the US News Top 25 National Research University rankings, ahead of Johns Hopkins, Duke, Chicago, Georgetown, and Northwestern, all ranked higher overall in the U.S. News rankings.
4) Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are private institutions with admission budgets four to five times larger than ours at UVA. These and other Ivy-caliber private schools also have massive financial aid budgets compared to their public peers like Virginia; therefore, the net price of attendance at these schools can be much lower for students and their families. Research shows that cost of attendance is the second biggest factor in a student’s college choice, after academic reputation.
5) UNC-Chapel Hill also has an admission budget that dwarfs ours at UVA, and it should be noted that 82% of the enrolling students at Chapel Hill are North Carolinians. State residents yield at a much higher rate than non-residents in part because of the lower total cost for tuition and fees. At UVA, 67% of our enrolling students are Virginians, which means we have a higher percentage of non-residents enrolling each year. Comparing yields between UNC and UVA, therefore, is misleading unless one understands these important details of context.
Given the confusion and misinformation about the role of yield in college admission, I felt it was important to provide this clarification. The Office of Undergraduate Admission is committed to excellence, integrity, and the enrollment of a class the University community can be proud of. The object of our aim, as Jefferson might say, is indeed “to make this Establishment the most eminent in the United States,” but it is also to follow Jefferson’s vision of an institution “based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind.” We look for and find students who are academic stars but who also exhibit outstanding personal qualities and character. With the help of our alumni, faculty, current students, and friends, we have been highly successful in enrolling talented scholars who continue to shape the University and the world around them.
Respectfully,
Greg W. Roberts
Dean of Undergraduate Admission
University of Virginia